Car park - liability for damage caused by poor maintennance?

[shep1001]

CoolHands said:

in defense of the op - what if a biker hit something not very visible and severely injured themselves (or a cyclist)? Eg running into a bit of metal barrier. I would of thought there must be some kind if duty of care if you are providing public access to your premises.

Eg are you (naysayers) telling me that if a lift-shaft was left open in Bluewater and somone walked into it there there would be no come back? Would you be saying tough-tittie cos the person shoud've seen it? What about a cheesewire stretched across a road? After all, it is visible right?

Cheese wire across the road? That's a whole different kettle of kippers - would have been placed there deliberately. I guess its a case of proving negligence which could get expensive. We all spunk hundreds a year on car insurance and hopefully never need to use it, so personally I would get in touch with your insurer and let them sort it out after all thats what you pay for. I claimed a lot more than 2K a few years ago and at renewal my premium went down!

Edited by shep1001 on Sunday 21st December 10:20

[aw51 121565]

allergictocheese said:

On a general note, civil court cases are not generally the sort of ambush event you see on TV. Generally speaking, both sides in a dispute have all their cards on the table well before any trial takes places. All the relevant information (documents, data, witness statements, physical evidence) is shared and analysed beforehand. If, and it's a big if, both sides get to trial, they do so knowing full well what the areas of dispute are and what arguments will be put forward. You don't typically get a star witness bursting into court at the last minute to deliver a knock out blow, that's not how it works. Companies, especially at the larger end, tend to comply as best they can with procedures and don't / can't lie to the other side about the existence of documents or facts simply because it doesn't suit their case. I'm sure some funny business goes on but you shouldn't have a starting point of assuming the other side will be dishonest.

The above is one reason why the idea of not posing pictures for fear of prejudicing your claim doesn't really hold water.

I sued a supermarket (one of the then-Big Four) in the early 2000s, because while I was perusing fresh produce at eye level on their fruit and veg stand I tripped over a 25kg bag of potatoes which had been left in the aisle by persons unknown. It exacerbated an ongoing back injury and led to a couple of new neurological problems in my left hand which are still with me 14 years later.

It was actually a fairly degrading progress, and I wouldn't do it again! At least no insurance company would have been involved - payouts came from the "colleagues' fund" (earmarked for Xmas bonuses etc) in those days.

Anyway, 3 years later, it came to court. It wasn't going that well for my claim on the day, the defendants outlined how they checked the floors every 15 minutes for obstructions, showed their 'standard operating protocol' and everything...

And then the knock out blow (which never happens?). They'd lost all their evidence - photographs, cleaning and floor-checking records for the day in question, the lot; they had gone all the way to court knowing full well they didn't have any evidence to defend the case...

Only they knocked themselves out on my behalf - nutters!! I'd also suggest their actions in the final stages were less than honest?

I only hope that things are more transparent nowadays .

[allergictocheese]

Today all that evidence would normally have been served on the claimant well before trial and they might struggle to introduce it so late in the day had they not done so already.

[grkify]

Would you not notice the barrier when pulling in to the space? Even if its dark and raining all cars have lights after all its a legal requirement. Personally totally against this kind of thing just seems like everyone is after someone else to blame.

[Spitfire2]

blueg33 said:

It has nothing to do with the space she was in, it's on the left turn onto the service road.

In that case, my view is that she has no excuse for not seeing it. Turning into a road should involve looking where you are going.

[Muzzer79]

Don't all these supermarkets have those signs stating that you park there and use them under your own risk, etc?

[Jim1556]

blueg33 said:

Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

Really? A painted barrier?

What if it'd been a small child?

Yes the Supermarket in question should keep their street furniture maintained and safe, but I'd suggest your wife should be able to negotiate a car park full of cars, trolleys, people, kerbs etc in all weathers, without bumping into anything...

Chastise her, it could've been worse, go the insurance route!

[friggs]

Only bothered reading page 1 but OP needs shooting, wife crashed into a stationery object and wants someone else to pay, buy your wife some driving lessons and tell her to drive her dented car as punishment!

My mum once crashed into a trolley bay, forgot it was there and dented both doors and wings, the car was away with the insurance being repaired before I even found out, she sucked it up and paid her excess, didn't try to blame someone else

some people in the fking country are stupid

[blueg33]

friggs said:

Only bothered reading page 1 but OP needs shooting, wife crashed into a stationery object and wants someone else to pay, buy your wife some driving lessons and tell her to drive her dented car as punishment!

My mum once crashed into a trolley bay, forgot it was there and dented both doors and wings, the car was away with the insurance being repaired before I even found out, she sucked it up and paid her excess, didn't try to blame someone else

some people in the fking country are stupid

[Sump]

Lol, crashed into a stationery object and wants to blame someone else.

10/10 would read again.

[xxChrisxx]

Oh dear OP, this thread hasn't really gone your way has it.

blueg33 said:

On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)

Being a bit of a pedant but being 'difficult to see' is not the same as 'invisible'.

blueg33 said:

My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).

I suspect that is his position until some person crashes into a static object on the estate, then sues him for it. Then all bets are off.

Edited by xxChrisxx on Monday 22 December 16:27

[blueg33]

xxChrisxx said:

Oh dear OP, this thread hasn't really gone your way has it.

blueg33 said:

On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)

Being a bit of a pedant but being 'difficult to see' is not the same as 'invisible'.

blueg33 said:

My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).

I suspect that is his position until some person crashes into a static object on the estate, then sues him for it. Then all bets are off.

Edited by xxChrisxx on Monday 22 December 16:27

Ph threads slways go like this, so I'm not surprised, plenty of people reach to judge but not be constructive.

There are plenty of cases where people have jig objects in car parks and claimed ft UHF landowner where that land owner was negligent.

My estates director had pointed me to a case where we lost. Driver hit a bollard that had been installed at an incorrect height.

Insurers are in contact with the supermarket. Happy to let them sort it out.

[Roundozo]

don4l said:

My wife once reversed into our house, which had been there the day before.

Quote of the day.

[spikeyhead]

Roundozo said:

don4l said:

My wife once reversed into our house, which had been there the day before.

Quote of the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQJcj6iUKc

[Spitfire2]

blueg33 said:

friggs said:

Only bothered reading page 1 but OP needs shooting, wife crashed into a stationery object and wants someone else to pay, buy your wife some driving lessons and tell her to drive her dented car as punishment!

My mum once crashed into a trolley bay, forgot it was there and dented both doors and wings, the car was away with the insurance being repaired before I even found out, she sucked it up and paid her excess, didn't try to blame someone else

some people in the fking country are stupid

He's absolutely right. Nop idea why you're rolling your eyes.

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

My estates director had pointed me to a case where we lost. Driver hit a bollard that had been installed at an incorrect height.

Incorrect to what ??

There are hundreds if not thousands of signs out and about on the road network which do not meet the TSRGD regs therefore rendering them unlawful if they get smacked and someone instigates a claim on that basis they would probably win.

There is an ex traffic BIB with a website who makes a living from investigsting such matters from what i gather.

[Hoover.]

blueg33 said:

Just thought, there is a 6th option - go through my insurance company, but TBH I don't want to claim if I can help it. Even if the store is found liable, the premium will still increase.

Ummm unfortunately you will probably have to declare it, an ex work colleague had an accident which didn't go through the insurances and somehow when he came to make a claim for something at a latter date his insurance company tried telling him his insurance was null and void as incident had not been disclosed. Took very long time to sort out.

I had someone drive in to my old Jeep, causing a £100 of damage, I wasn't even going to claim but the other party informed their insurance company, and two weeks latter I got a letter in the post from another insurance company insuring one of my other cars stating I hadn't declared an incident to them, got me in a right panic as didn't want to end up like ex work colleague, but apparently I didn't need to fret as I only needed to declare it when renewing (had a right go at them about the actually wording of the letter though).

all I can say is be very wary of insurance companies.

Edited by Hoover. on Monday 29th December 12:38